Support NeoGAF

[thepotatoman]

All i know for sure is there is no gamer utopia to be found here. Game companies aren't exactly wallowing in profits, so if their revenue went down in any way, budgets or business models would adjust in drastic ways. You paying less money for the same content isn't likely going to increase revenue (unless the industry had the demand curves completely wrong all of these years). Luckily this won't probably effect anything at all.

In the order of likelihood:

1. (likely) Valve and the like rewords its contract or already has wording in the contract to make the ruling not applicable and absolutely nothing changes.

2. (possibly) Valve and the like is no longer allowed to ban people that sell their passwords on the internet, and the few people that are willing to jump between 20 different accounts to save money can do so, but overall the effects are insignificant as most people would find doing such business risky and a hassle.

3. (unlikely) The courts force Valve and the like to make the selling of individual games within one's account available to everyone, and all digital distribution shuts down as developers switch back to physical media where there is at least some damage worry, location scarcity, and shipping time & cost to worry about when it comes to used games. Steam moves to small indie developers and maybe free to play only.

4. (would never happen because of option 3) The whole industry somehow moves to digital distribution despite the ruling, and put an emphasis on all games to be designed around a treadmill, and the only two types of games that exist is free 2 play to peice meal your account, and subscription based games. It would be hard to move single player content over to those models, so many single player games will no longer be made.

 

[nephilimdj]

Even for triple AAA titles. Like I said, Max Payne 3 PC is already $30, and Spec Ops: The Line PC is $25. Both new AAA releases.

But this is EU were PC retail isnt completely dead (see how GAME UK stopped a few games coming to Steam in UK)
Was in London for SC2 launch, was crazy

 

[Version 3.0]

Instead of trying to get around this ruling, publishers should try and use it to get what they've always whined for: a cut of used sales. Steam, etc might be willing to cut them in, where Gamestop never was (and shouldn't have been, quite frankly).

 

[mavs]

The ruling is based on general EU principles, and explains why/how these applies the present case of UsedSoft vs. Oracle (which originated in Germany).

Yes, and the paragraph refers to the rights of any lawful acquirer under any circumstances to use the software. But it does not refer to the right of resale; that question is settled in the text of the judgment leading up to that paragraph.

 

[thepotatoman]

Instead of trying to get around this ruling, publishers should try and use it to get what they've always whined for: a cut of used sales. Steam, etc might be willing to cut them in, where Gamestop never was (and shouldn't have been, quite frankly).

Why would steam want to give them a cut? Because they are nice guys? They are still a business and the law wouldn't force them.

 

[Rollo Lawson]

You sell the licences and it gets deactivated on your account.

This is how propellerhead does it

 

[NullPointer]

Instead of trying to get around this ruling, publishers should try and use it to get what they've always whined for: a cut of used sales.

They don't deserve a penny of it.

 

[Alchemy]

Great news until you realize every game is going to end up a digital 'service' in the future and you won't own anything, even a CD key.

 

[angelfly]

Instead of trying to get around this ruling, publishers should try and use it to get what they've always whined for: a cut of used sales. Steam, etc might be willing to cut them in, where Gamestop never was (and shouldn't have been, quite frankly).

They shouldn't get any part of the sale.

 

[DimmuBurgerKing]

Game developers am cry.

 

[patapuf]

They shouldn't get any part of the sale.

i don't see the disadvantage of the content producer getting more money without the consumer having to pay more. what's the advantage of steam getting the money instead of the dev?

 

[snap0212]

Great news until you realize every game is going to end up a digital 'service' in the future and you won't own anything, even a CD key.

Not sure how that would change a thing. You'll still purchased the license and selling that license is perfectly fine.

i don't see the disadvantage of the content producer getting more money without the consumer having to pay more. what's the advantage of steam getting the money instead of the dev?

Why would Steam get the money when I sell a game/license to you?

The money exchange should be between you and me. All Steam needs to know is that I gave up the right to use the license and that you've bought the right to use my license.

 

[angelfly]

i don't see the disadvantage of the content producer getting more money without the consumer having to pay more. what's the advantage of steam getting the money instead of the dev?

What are they doing that warrants them getting any money from my second hand sale? They made their cut with the original sale and as far as I'm concerned have no further entitlement to any money from me.

 

[CosmicQueso]

And this is why everything will be free to play at some point, where you won't own even the license to play the game.

 

[patapuf]

What are they doing that warrants them getting any money from my second hand sale? They made their cut with the original sale and as far as I'm concerned have no further entitlement to any money from me.

i'm not saying they have a right to the money but why is it bad if steam gives them a cut of a resale? there's more to gaming than activision and EA, especially on steam. why is better for steam to get the money rather than those that actually make games?

Not sure how that would change a thing. You'll still purchased the license and selling that license is perfectly fine.Why would Steam get the money when I sell a game/license to you?

The money exchange should be between you and me. All Steam needs to know is that I gave up the right to use the license and that you've bought the right to use my license.

the quote refers to selling the game to steam, not a private person

 

[PataHikari]

I don't see how people see this as good news, unless you really hate the gaming industry and want to see them all put out of business

Because selling used games is does not effect the industry in any real way and it's just some boogeyman companies use to try and throw restrictions on your rights?

 

[patapuf]

Because selling used games is does not effect the industry in any real way and it's just some boogeyman companies use to try and throw restrictions on your rights?

the very least this will do is more DRM being implemented in games to track the transfer of the liscence and it being impossible for the seller to play the game after selling it.

that is a bad thing especially since games are already cheap on pc.

 

[larvi]

Has the RockPaperShotgun article been posted yet?

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/03/crikey-eu-rules-you-can-resell-downloaded-games/

Pretty good breakdown of what the judge actually says/means.

So from what I read there I would say that somone in EU who purchased a game from GoG could legally sell that game to someone else and provide them with the digital copy they downloaded, provided they remove the copy from their computer(s) and not download it again in the future. Makes sense to me and I suspect that US courts would uphold this as well if somone where to do this and the publisher challenged it. Whoever bought the game would probably want to have some sort of bill of sale from the original owner to cover themselves though.

 

[angelfly]

i'm not saying they have a right to the money but why is it bad if steam gives them a cut of a resale? there's more to gaming than activision and EA, especially on steam. why is better for steam to get the money rather than those that actually make games?

If you're talking about directly selling games back to Steam then if Valve wants to give a cut of their own money then that's their own business. If I'm selling it to another user then neither Valve or the content creator deserve any part of the sale.

 

[Dan Yo]

This absolutely needs to happen if we are ever going to move into an all digital future. A future where the manufacturers own the only store in town and we are beholden to only their policies and prices, is not a future for gaming I can willingly take part in. Just looking at the outrageous prices MS still charges for their games on demand makes me extremely tepid about the future.

This, however, gives some power back to the consumers. Given that we have the right in this country to sell or rent property we own, there is no way MS or Sony can just charge whatever they want for however long they want. The competition will force them to do deals, have sales, and slash prices.

 

[patapuf]

If you're talking about directly selling games back to Steam then if Valve wants to give a cut of their own money then that's their own business. If I'm selling it to another user then neither Valve or the content creator deserve any part of the sale.

that's all i'm saying. though i heavily doubt one would be able to sell anything on steam without valve getting a cut.

 

[thepotatoman]

What are they doing that warrants them getting any money from my second hand sale? They made their cut with the original sale and as far as I'm concerned have no further entitlement to any money from me.

In theory, you are correct, that is the exact definition of first sale doctrine. But in practice it would either raise the price of new games significantly, cut the budgets significantly, or change game design practices significantly. Would you be ok with that?

This isn't like the decision of spending 5 bucks more to make sure your game and case is in perfect condition, or going around to used game shops just hoping they have the exact game you want in the store used, or risking online transactions with someone you don't know and paying shipping and waiting 2 weeks to get it. There is no reason you wouldn't press the used game button if there was one on steam. As long as there are still people buying the game, every single person that chooses to sell a game would be equivalent to one less sale to the developer.

If 30% of people decide to sell their game then that is very close to 30% less sales for the developers, and that is a significant portion of revenue. And those people that would only buy a game for $30 instead of $60 would have paid that 30 when it went on sale, thus still a lost sale.

 

[Htown]

this is good news, though it's going to take a while for companies to figure out how to work with the ruling.

Also, I wouldn't count on seeing this happen in the United States any time soon, unfortunately.

 

[patapuf]

This absolutely needs to happen if we are ever going to move into an all digital future. A future where the manufacturers own the only store in town and we are beholden to only their policies and prices, is not a future for gaming I can willingly take part in. Just looking at the outrageous prices MS still charges for their games on demand makes me extremely tepid about the future.

This, however, gives some power back to the consumers. Given that we have the right in this country to sell or rent property we own, there is no way MS or Sony can just charge whatever they want for however long they want. The competition will force them to do deals, have sales, and slash prices.

an easy solution is also to simply not buy on a platform where the manufacturer operates the only store.

 

[Fredrik]

This absolutely needs to happen if we are ever going to move into an all digital future. A future where the manufacturers own the only store in town and we are beholden to only their policies and prices, is not a future for gaming I can willingly take part in. Just looking at the outrageous prices MS still charges for their games on demand makes me extremely tepid about the future.

This, however, gives some power back to the consumers. Given that we have the right in this country to sell or rent property we own, there is no way MS or Sony can just charge whatever they want for however long they want. The competition will force them to deals, have sales, and slash prices.

Agreed 100%. And digital sales will go up because now you can safely buy $60 games digital since you know you can at least get some of it back if you don't want it anymore. It's all good.

 

[kodt]

So from what I read there I would say that somone in EU who purchased a game from GoG could legally sell that game to someone else and provide them with the digital copy they downloaded, provided they remove the copy from their computer(s) and not download it again in the future. Makes sense to me and I suspect that US courts would uphold this as well if somone where to do this and the publisher challenged it. Whoever bought the game would probably want to have some sort of bill of sale from the original owner to cover themselves though.

Right, and the original seller (so in this case GoG) could remove that game from your account once they learned that you have sold it. Of course, since GoG games are DRM free I don't see how they would know or how it could possibly be enforced, but I still do support consumers rights in this case.

I supposed since GoG is DRM free already, there is nothing stopping you from just pirating them so selling it and keeping your copy would be the same as pirating pretty much.

an easy solution is also to simply not buy on a platform where the manufacturer operates the only store.

In many cases, you don't have a choice (if you want the game).

 

[procrastinator]

Not sure how that would change a thing. You'll still purchased the license and selling that license is perfectly fine.Why would Steam get the money when I sell a game/license to you?

The money exchange should be between you and me. All Steam needs to know is that I gave up the right to use the license and that you've bought the right to use my license.

Why should steam care at all what you do. They are under no obligation to you to make the game work on your computer, they just have to provide a download link to the files for the game.

Cool, you can download it and install it on your computer, but good luck making it work with Steams DRM system.

 

[Theonik]

Wonder how that would affect Valve's policy of banning accounts if the suspect you intend to sell them.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

The prices drop more rapidly and the games are on sale a lot more frequently.

You were still wrong about PC games being cheaper at launch. The extra $10 they wanted for licensing fees made it's way to PC games. As for going on sale more, maybe but a used price anytime is pretty damn convenient too. Right now Skyrim is still $60, $50 used.

I never believed it was licensing fees, after all those existed last gen too. It was just a $10 price hike with a justification people could accept and then once everyone was used to it, PC games went up by $10 because apparently everyone forgot the "real reason" for the price hike.

 

[Version 3.0]

Why would steam want to give them a cut? Because they are nice guys? They are still a business and the law wouldn't force them.

I agree, just like I said about Gamestop, but I did say "try", and the digital world is not 100% equivalent to the real one. Valve might go for it to get publishers on board instead of having them squirm around the law. I'm not optimistic, but there is a win-win for everyone here, potentially.

Of course, ideally, it would be nice for corporations to acknowledge basic consumer rights...HA!

I've been arguing digital used sales for years. IMO it's a big missed opportunity for these services. The potential to be the digital Gamestop. Sales are one thing, trade-ins and budget customers is another.

 

[x3sphere]

And at the price you originally bought it for. People will exploit it and sell 75-80% off discounted titles for profit, if applicable.

People already do this btw, at least on Steam. They buy a ton of discounted titles as gifts them resell them at slightly higher price points.

 

[patapuf]

You were still wrong about PC games being cheaper at launch. The extra $10 they wanted for licensing fees made it's way to PC games. As for going on sale more, maybe but a used price anytime is pretty damn convenient too. Right now Skyrim is still $60, $50 used.

I never believed it was licensing fees, after all those existed last gen too. It was just a $10 price hike with a justification people could accept and then once everyone was used to it, PC games went up by $10 because apparently everyone forgot the "real reason" for the price hike.

there are plenty of new pc games that aren't new and 60 dollar apart from some of the bigger publishers. Do only the games from EA, activision and bethesda count?

and console makers DO ask for a licencsing fee, the only thing the diference from 50 to 60 does on pc is give more money directly to the publisher instead of Sony/Nintendo/MS. And i'm sure the better margins are one of the reasons more 3rd party publishers try to establish themselves on pc again.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

there are plenty of new pc games that aren't new and 60 dollar apart from some of the bigger publishers. Do only the games from EA, activision and bethesda count?

and console makers DO ask for a licencsing fee, the only thing the diference from 50 to 60 does on pc is give more money directly to the publisher instead of Sony/Nintendo/MS. And i'm sure the better margins are one of the reasons more 3rd party publishers try to establish themselves on pc again.

They aren't the only ones that count, but they do count.


Console makers have always charged a license fee, that was worked into the price until this gen when all of a sudden an extra $10 was needed to pay an existing fee. If you bought that line of BS that's your business, I didn't though.

 

[ElFly]

Reading the RPS article

The specific rule seems to be that if a license is sold indefinitely – i.e. not a license for a year, or similar – that the rightholder “exhausts his exclusive distribution right”.

Well I guess that new games will be sold for a limited amount of time, even if that time is long compared to game use (say, 20 years, 100 years or something).

Existing copies are kind of fucked though, unless they manage to make the license limited retroactively too via updates or something.

 

[mclem]

So from what I read there I would say that somone in EU who purchased a game from GoG could legally sell that game to someone else and provide them with the digital copy they downloaded, provided they remove the copy from their computer(s) and not download it again in the future.

While that's *morally* reasonable, strictly speaking, you haven't actually transferred the license.

 

[Joe Molotov]

BRB, selling my Steam account.

 

[patapuf]

They aren't the only ones that count, but they do count.


Console makers have always charged a license fee, that was worked into the price until this gen when all of a sudden an extra $10 was needed to pay an existing fee. If you bought that line of BS that's your business, I didn't though.

the extra 10 dollars are because game budget went up, as did inflation and because they could, i never said otherwise.

your argument was that new games in general on pc cost 60 dollar. That's just not true and is still the exeption rather than the norm, in general gaming on pc is far cheaper than on consoles if you plan to buy new.

 

[AzaK]

Wish this was a worldwide thing. It's the only real reason I don't want to go full digital. I want to be able to sell or give my games to others when I've finished.

 

[gabbo]

Wonder how that would affect Valve's policy of banning accounts if the suspect you intend to sell them.

I don't think this ruling would actually stop that since the account and the licenses attached to it are separate things, but that's just a guess

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

the extra 10 dollars are because game budget went up, as did inflation and because they could, i never said otherwise.

your argument was that new games in general on pc cost 60 dollar. That's just not true and is still the exeption rather than the norm, in general gaming on pc is far cheaper than on consoles if you plan to buy new.

On PC you have to buy new and I guess if you want to count the floods of indie games then you're right, most PC games don't start at $60, neither do XBLA games. AAA games though, mostly $60 on PC.

 

[mclem]

Console makers have always charged a license fee, that was worked into the price until this gen when all of a sudden an extra $10 was needed to pay an existing fee. If you bought that line of BS that's your business, I didn't though.

I don't think anyone's even *claimed* that the $10 hike was to cover licensing; I'm pretty sure everyone was adamant that it was to cover increased budgets.

 

[dilatedmuscle]

Now is the time for a company to capitalize and create a client to allow users to resell digital games.

 

[patapuf]

On PC you have to buy new and I guess if you want to count the floods of indie games then you're right, most PC games don't start at $60, neither do XBLA games. AAA games though, mostly $60 on PC.

there's plenty of mid sized devs and some of the bigger publishers on pc with a retail precence (at least here in europe) that don't charge the console prices for their games.

 

[Zizbuka]

This was my Idea as well. Let them have a share for handling the transfer, and everyone wins.

Until there's nobody left to develop new games. Who wins then? But, this might drive GameStop out of business, so I'm OK with it.

 

[Derrick01]

I've had a "trade in" category in my steam list for over a year now that runs at least 50 games deep, and I know Gabe has talked about it before as a possibility but it would be really tough to correctly implement (maybe that's why they have an economist working for them).

If anything trading stuff in would get me to re-buy stuff because if I need money for a game coming soon I'll trade a lot in and then regret getting rid of half of them and buy them again :lol

 

[Deadstar]

This could be huge. Goddamn.

I remember Gabe talking about reselling your games some time ago but that it'd be hard to actually implement.

Why would it be hard? As the poster above said, you just transfer your license to another steam account.

 

[mclem]

I've had a "trade in" category in my steam list for over a year now that runs at least 50 games deep, and I know Gabe has talked about it before as a possibility but it would be really tough to correctly implement (maybe that's why they have an economist working for them).

If anything trading stuff in would get me to re-buy stuff because if I need money for a game coming soon I'll trade a lot in and then regret getting rid of half of them and buy them again :lol

If I was Valve I'd implement crafting. Craft three games, get a random game or games equivalent to the total cost of those three games

 

[larvi]

While that's *morally* reasonable, strictly speaking, you haven't actually transferred the license.

Why not? If I provide a written bill of sale to someone I can't see how that wouldn't qualify as a license transfer. No different then selling my car, even if I keep a set of keys if I sell it and to someone that doesn't give me any right to use after the sale and if I do I'm breaking the law.

 

[mclem]

Why not? If I provide a written bill of sale to someone I can't see how that wouldn't qualify as a license transfer. No different then selling my car, even if I keep a set of keys if I sell it and to someone that doesn't give me any right to use after the sale and if I do I'm breaking the law.

Because the license inherently includes possession of the ability to download it from GoG.

Edit: Actually, that might possibly be an assumption on my part.

 

[larvi]

Because the license inherently includes possession of the ability to download it from GoG.

It does? My agreement with GoG to download games from them is a separate entity from the license to use the software. If GoG were to go away tomorrow I would still have a license to install and play the games I bought from them.